Talk:Thomas Forester/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Morningstar and portfolio link to dab pages.
- The lead is very blunt, and does not introduce the subject; instead it jumps straight to "details" and heads on the main stuff later.
- No-where in the text is there any indication of what country he comes from.
- P/E is not understandable, because the first occurrence does not have the abbreviation in brackets.
- I have not made a full review of the prose.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Not checked.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- There is only an estimate of the year of birth, no place of birth, no information about education, and hardly information about his career prior to the 2000s.
- The article is dominated by recentism.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- The article is not imaged.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article lacks fundamental information expected in a biography article. It is not possible to pass the article as GA without much more content. I will therefore have to fail the article. However, except for the lead, what is there is good. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
